Have been having a play with my dads collection of film cameras recently (yes film remember that!)
Took my dads Olympus OM1 to Chaminox in France and really enjoyed having to sort the settings out myself and being in control.
Im going to be trying my Yashica G 35 electro this week which is a fantastic camera if a little heavy.
Ive spotted on ebay that SLR's are going for peanuts now digitals taken over and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions. Budget at most is £100 ive been looking at the Canon Eos 300 and Pentax mz 50.
Page 1 of 1
Suggesttions For A 35mm Slr
#2
Posted 21 April 2009 - 05:41 PM
I bought a Nikon F80 for £50 last year along with some very expensive lenses, nice camera but I just couldn't get anything I was happy with out of it. And lugging it around was a total ball ache. I never took it out so never really used it.
Time is a great healer, a decent digital is far better than the 400ASA film I used with that Nikon and you can't put a price on the convenience of being able to review your photos instantly. But for £100 you won't get anything more than a so-so point and shoot digital cam new. You need to spend £150+ to get something decent new and the secondhand stuff worth bothering with holds it's value well...they have the same manual controls as the 35mm if you want a play.
My 10p th after spending loads on a 35mm SLR recently...
Time is a great healer, a decent digital is far better than the 400ASA film I used with that Nikon and you can't put a price on the convenience of being able to review your photos instantly. But for £100 you won't get anything more than a so-so point and shoot digital cam new. You need to spend £150+ to get something decent new and the secondhand stuff worth bothering with holds it's value well...they have the same manual controls as the 35mm if you want a play.
My 10p th after spending loads on a 35mm SLR recently...
#3
Posted 21 April 2009 - 06:42 PM
have to say I agree with Colin - I resisted the switchover to digital - even spent £500 on a new film body after it was clear that digital was the way to go
eventually I bit the bullet and went digital, and have never regretted it
there are downsides to all systems, but I am not sure I would want to go back...
eventually I bit the bullet and went digital, and have never regretted it
there are downsides to all systems, but I am not sure I would want to go back...
Someone stole my Thunder...
#4
Posted 21 April 2009 - 06:44 PM
I have digital cameras aswell it was more the fact that once very high cost film cameras are now being exchanged for relatively small amounts of money and I was wondering if this avenue was worth exploiting.
#5
Posted 21 April 2009 - 08:33 PM
I would say no, especially when you add the cost of good quality processing and film.
The case would have been different 5-6 years ago perhaps but not now.
I for one was very disappointed with the amount of noise present in my 35mm film shots when viewed closely...as closely as I might be looking at my digital shots. For years I'd been looking at 6x4 colour photos and never noticed the amount of grain in them!
You could get one anyway if cheap enough but be prepared to be disappointed when 'pixel peeping' compared to a good digital shot...
The case would have been different 5-6 years ago perhaps but not now.
I for one was very disappointed with the amount of noise present in my 35mm film shots when viewed closely...as closely as I might be looking at my digital shots. For years I'd been looking at 6x4 colour photos and never noticed the amount of grain in them!
You could get one anyway if cheap enough but be prepared to be disappointed when 'pixel peeping' compared to a good digital shot...
#6
Posted 22 April 2009 - 02:06 PM
Ultimately, even if you continue down the film route... What do you actually intend doing with your prints if you want to show them online? Scan them of course... Film to me today seems as old as compact cassettes, 7" vinyl or even 8-track for that matter. It has it's niche markets today, but for 95% of what folk want, digital it is, all the way.
Jason Aspinall, Original site creator, since '98
http://www.chilledatthebottom.com
http://www.chilled35.comMmm, clicky :)
http://www.chilledatthebottom.com
http://www.chilled35.comMmm, clicky :)
#7
Posted 22 April 2009 - 09:05 PM
I used to have Pentax (film and digital) but changed to Canon for the faster focussing - I now use an EOS400D and an EOS30. Personally I would go for the Canon rather than the Pentax.
You could always do ityourself! Darkroom equipment is probably going for peanuts now - I've still got my darkroom set up although I've not used it for a couple of years.
QUOTE (BOK @ Apr 21 2009, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would say no, especially when you add the cost of good quality processing and film.
You could always do ityourself! Darkroom equipment is probably going for peanuts now - I've still got my darkroom set up although I've not used it for a couple of years.
I stole BenF's Thunder ...
Pat
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1